KEY TAKEAWAYS:

• A recent federal court case provides guidance on how to address an employee’s request for an accommodation based upon a sincerely held religious belief

• Employers must offer reasonable accommodations for the sincerely held religious beliefs of employees who seek exemptions from certain mandates and policies

• In addressing the request for a reasonable accommodation, employers should not address the validity or plausibility of the employee’s belief

• Employers may consider if the sincerely held religious belief is based upon secular beliefs by evaluating how the employee frames their request, but still, employers should do so cautiously

A recent federal court case heard by Chief Judge Matthew Brann for the Middle District of Pennsylvania provides employers with guidance on how to address an employee’s request for an accommodation based upon a sincerely held religious belief.

In Rackovan v. The Pennsylvania State University, the employee sought to be exempted from the university’s COVID vaccine and testing requirements. As a fully remote employee, he was initially exempt from the testing requirement, but was subject to the COVID vaccine mandate unless he obtained an exemption on the basis of a sincerely held religious belief. In submitting his request to be exempt from the COVID vaccine mandate, the employee submitted a letter from his pastor detailing the employee’s religious objection and setting forth that this religious objection was shared by members of his congregation. The employee was granted the exemption.

Thereafter, the university implemented a revised policy requiring even fully remote employees to test for COVID. The employee sought a second religious accommodation to be exempt from the testing requirements. In making the request, the employee explained that his religious beliefs are contrary to the “COVID agenda” and he is not permitted to “come into agreement with any aspect of it.” The university granted the employee’s continued exemption for the COVID vaccine mandate, but denied the exemption from the testing requirement. The employee challenged that determination, and he was ultimately terminated for failing to follow the testing policy.

The plaintiff filed suit alleging four counts of religious discrimination under Title VII and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act. The university filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. In addressing the motion to dismiss, and whether the employee’s belief was a sincerely held religious belief, the court cautioned that no court should inquire into the validity or plausibility of the employee’s beliefs. However, a court should ensure that the alleged beliefs are rooted in the plaintiff’s religion. Further, the court explained that secular ideas cannot be transformed into religious beliefs by cloaking all of life’s activities with religious significance. The court partially granted the motion to dismiss by finding that the employee could not maintain a claim involving the testing requirement. The court granted the employee leave to amend.

The employee filed an amended complaint with further allegations in support of his claims based upon the university’s refusal to exempt him from the COVID testing requirement. The university again sought dismissal of such claims. In finding that the employee’s objection to the COVID testing requirement was not based upon a sincerely held religious belief, the court focused on the plaintiff’s allegations that “his faith forbids him to participate or come into agreement with any aspect of the lies of the COVID agenda.” In light of those allegations, the court determined that the plaintiff was seeking to cloak secular medical beliefs with religious significance and dismissed his claims based upon the university’s denial of his request to be exempt from the testing requirement. This time, the relevant claims were dismissed with prejudice.

What This Means to Businesses

Against this recent backdrop, if an employee seeks an accommodation based upon a sincerely held religious belief, courts will not address the validity of such a belief. However, the court will look at the employee’s reasoning for seeking an accommodation based upon the sincerely held religious belief.

While being mindful of the reality that courts can parse religion and secularity more finely than employers can safely do, employers should consider these same points. When faced with an accommodation request by an employee based upon a sincerely held religious belief, an employer should consider whether what is being claimed is tied to a faith-based practice or whether the employee frames their request based on political, moral, or otherwise secular points. Employers must be mindful, however, that an employee only needs to establish a sincere religious based objection to the policy or requirement itself.

If you have questions about how to handle an employee’s accommodation request, please contact:

• Russell S. Massey
• Cali L. Chandiramani
• Scott R. Green
• Christopher P. Maugans
• Caroline J. Berdzik
• Stephen C. Mazzara
• Or another member of the Employment and Labor team